I welcome the report, Dirprwy Lywydd, and agree with almost all of it, but I would at this point strike a note of discord with Jane Hutt, not on the last thing she said—I absolutely agree with what she said about shared parental leave and the low take-up—but on recommendation 3. Before I go into that, I'd like to just note the introduction—paragraph 1, page 15:

'Having children has a life-long effect on women’s employment rates, career opportunities and income. A startling proportion of women either do not go back to work after having children, or return to lower paid, part-time jobs to fit around childcare.'

Absolutely. It's certainly the case and it's definitely, starkly, borne out by the evidence and the fact that the same is not felt by fathers. But I would add to that that fathers—and I think that John Griffiths has recognised that—because of the gendered assumptions about childcare, have a different kind of pressure in their lives and that is to leave their children to go to work and provide an income that is reduced as a result of having children, and I felt that myself. I still feel it myself—I'm the father of two small children. And with regard to recommendation 3, let me say that if I was in a position to be offered a place in Government, I would not take it. I would not be able to accept a position in Government, in this Assembly term, and there are no members of the Labour leadership campaign here to say, 'Well, we wouldn't offer it to him anyway'. But if I want to play a part in my children's lives, I have to make that sacrifice. So, I'm recognising that sacrifice, but if I look at recommendation 3, I cannot see how a job share for Ministers would work, in that it isn't a job in the conventional sense. And the same goes for Members of the National Assembly. With responsible Government and with stable Government, I think you are able to work flexibly within your roles and I don't see how it would be publicly acceptable then to job share at election time. But I know that Members in this Chamber have a different view. The reason I mention my own personal position is because I'm saying that from a point of experience, I think.

With regard to recommendation 6—all teaching posts to be advertised as flexible working—the Government has accepted it, but actually they say, 'Well, it's actually down to governing bodies'. I'd like some clarity where they say:

'It will be imperative that the review of teachers' pay and conditions takes full account of the flexibilities required to support the range of working patterns that schools require.'

I'd like to know what that means. I assume it means flexibility in the provision of pay, but I'd like more information there. It's good to see that recommendation 8 builds on the foundational economy and talks about the foundational economy and the gender imbalances there. It's nice to see the dialogue on the foundational economy being taken into committees beyond those of which Members who advocate the foundational economy are Members.

Recommendation 16 urges Government to review the current availability and cost of wraparound care. I've had many conversations with the Minister with regard to the childcare offer and know that the Government is focusing on getting this right. Again, from personal experience, I've seen it happen and I think that co-location of foundation phase childcare, both in school and by care providers, needs to be identified and needs to be part of the principles of what the Government is doing.

Recommendation 30 urges the Welsh Government to create source of advice for all matters relating to parenting and employment, with particular support tailored to SMEs. Well, Members will know that I've talked at length of my experience with SMEs, particularly through my research, and I talked to an owner-manager on one occasion, and he said, 'Yes, my staff, they'd certainly work flexibly. My accountant, not only does he do the accounts, he also cleans the toilets.' And from that point of view, this understanding of flexible working is not fully understood in all of the private sector communities that we've talked about. Flexible working must be for the benefit of the worker, not the employer. That is not understood. We talk about flexible working and, immediately, employers think 'skills flexibility'. That's not what it is; it's 'hours flexibility', and that needs to be clearly understood.

From my point of view, I recognise—and I've been interested in this for a long time as a university teacher—that the nine-to-five desk job is becoming increasingly obsolete, and flexible jobs are what we need, not least with the problems of public transport. In my office, I encourage flexible working. So, my staff are encouraged to work flexibly and to work as flexibly as possible. They don't have to be in on a day when they're not required to be in, they can work from home as much as possible, and they are encouraged to pursue professional development outside of work, but professional development that they desire to see.

I think we can all, as Assembly Members, take this report to heart and use it as an example in the way we employ our staff as well and enable them to work flexibly. So, with one very small caveat, I support this report.